I'm a huge fan of many film score composers (esp bernard herman), and many video game composers (yasunori = god). I also would credit the brilliant sound engeneers (from Steve Reich to Hanz Zimmer and Aphex Twin), because I think music does have a lot to do with sound, despite what Igor may think.

But I"m an art composer at heart, so I would have to say... (notions to the picture of Henryk Gorecki.)

<--------

Let's also not forget prokofiev and barber are just too cool. If you haven't heard of them, or heard their stuff, find some of it.

Loodwig wrote:I'm a huge fan of many film score composers (esp bernard herman), and many video game composers (yasunori = god). I also would credit the brilliant sound engeneers (from Steve Reich to Hanz Zimmer and Aphex Twin), because I think music does have a lot to do with sound, despite what Igor may think.

But I"m an art composer at heart, so I would have to say... (notions to the picture of Henryk Gorecki.)

<--------

Let's also not forget prokofiev and barber are just too cool. If you haven't heard of them, or heard their stuff, find some of it.

Prokofiev is AWESOME. Love for 3 Oranges is so amazing and full of tension. It has been said that this piece was written as a direct mockery of Stalin. While we are on the topic, what do you think of Dmitri Shostakovich?

Shostakovich is a wonderful half artist that is 90% accessible. What that really means is that he isn't as deep as, say, Schoenberg or Messian, but he is by no means as shallow as Rachmaninov... or heaven forbid Aaron Copeland (who barely qualifies as a composer in my book). the 90% accessible comes from his pallet choice of harmonies, which are very spicy. This turns off 10% of his potential audience (speaking from musicologists, not general public), but for the remaining 9/10ths, just remains orgasmic.

Now, this is just my opinion. Artistry is not a gratifying tool, and I find his works to be of great quality and VERY FUN to listen to, despite whatever degree of general accessibility or artistry he may convey.

For what he does, he does it very well: a marvelous blend of moderatly deep forms with complex harmonies that don't leave you lost, yet don't bore the avid listener.

Loodwig wrote:Shostakovich is a wonderful half artist that is 90% accessible. What that really means is that he isn't as deep as, say, Schoenberg or Messian, but he is by no means as shallow as Rachmaninov... or heaven forbid Aaron Copeland (who barely qualifies as a composer in my book). the 90% accessible comes from his pallet choice of harmonies, which are very spicy. This turns off 10% of his potential audience (speaking from musicologists, not general public), but for the remaining 9/10ths, just remains orgasmic.

Now, this is just my opinion. Artistry is not a gratifying tool, and I find his works to be of great quality and VERY FUN to listen to, despite whatever degree of general accessibility or artistry he may convey.

For what he does, he does it very well: a marvelous blend of moderatly deep forms with complex harmonies that don't leave you lost, yet don't bore the avid listener.

that's Shostakovich!

I just think his history led him to create what was potentially, the most relatable humanistic music that has yet been conceived. Have you heard his 8th Quartet? Or Symphony No. 4,5 or 11? Regardless of what people say about Testimony and the Bullshit of Solomon Volkov, you can see this man's emotional status in his music. Around him people were dying, being carried off, bodily, into the night where they disappeared behind walls of granite and stone. He was really a tortured soul who was always aware that the reaper was always a step behind him and yet he couldn't possibly turn his back on what he knew to be true and that idea is truly reflected in his music!

"The majority of my symphonies are tombstones. Too many of our people died and were buried in places unknown to anyone, not even their relatives. It happened to many of my friends. Where do you put the tombstones for Meyerhold or Tukhachevsky?" D. Shostakovich

I would love to hear what you mean by deep music in the cases of Schoenberg and Messian. Rachmaninov was a gateway musician for me when I first began to immerse myself in the endless possibility of classical music. His orchestration is 'pretty' but you are right, there is little depth within the scope of his works.
I haven't really listened to a lot of whats out there, perhaps you can help me to begin building a good classical library.

What, you mean about pooping your pants? Yeah man, me and all my friends do it all the time. Its the best way to show that you are pumped up about something!

.....

Oh, right, the borrowing media thing. Well I'll reply to it in that thread. I know we have at least 5 Wesnoth people here. Dave registered twice with two different names for some reason. I have no idea why. But let's just consider him twice the normal fan shall we?

I think the Halo sound track deserves an honorable mention. It's pieced together very well, and I especially like their use of chorus. It's simply a masterpiece. I hope we can bring out the chorii the same way they did.

I like Halo. One score that really caught my ear recently was Drakengard (ps2). Only thing I'd say against Halo is the musical depth involved, but the downside to artistry is that it can take away from the game. Given the emphasis of Halo is in the game and not just the score... it's a luxury they cannot afford. In RPG's, however, I feel the story is entirely different.

Then again, we have two composers on this project who are hardcore into artistry and depth of sound and music.

"We want a simpler and more melodic style for music, a simple, less complicated emotional state, and dissonance again relegated to its proper place as one element of music..."~Sergei Prokofiev

Regarding the same composer who did halo; this earlier game (also by bungie studios, during their "indie" days) was scored by the same gentleman. A lot of it has to do with the narrator, doing a rare bit of absolutely excellent voice acting, but this has stuck with me as easily one of the most epic presentations I've seen in any videogame.

To bring viewers up to speed; this is Myth: The Fallen Lords. Set it a fairly run-of-the-mill medieval-fantasy setting*. Some decade ago, 5 sorcerers, known as the "fallen lords", came out of nowhere and began attacking the civilized world. They were far, far more powerful than anyone fighting against them, and systematically laid waste to city after city until, when the story starts, only one big city, "Madrigal" is left standing against them. Above all, their key weapon, was mass necromancy; raising tens, even hundreds of thousands of dead men to make an army so overwhelming in numbers that nothing could really stand against it. You, the player, command small parts of a group of soldiers known as The Legion; one of the last organized fighting forces trying to save humanity from being wiped out. Besides your men, you have the backing of the nine avatara; a circle of the few surviving wizards who are trying to do whatever they can to stop the onslaught.

The game was a RTS. It was unusual in a couple of ways - though it debuted about the same time as warcraft 2, the game came with full-3d terrain (impressive in the days of 200mhz machines), and prerendered raytraced 3d->2d sprites (naturally 'real' 3d was out of the question). Most especially, the game simulated physics quite strongly, so the arc of things like missiles mattered. Arrows would be deflected by trees or rooftops. High ground mattered because running up to it was hard; etc. It was also unusual in that you did not build troops; you had a group of troops at the start, and that was all you got. If they died, they weren't replaceable.

* sans orcs, goblins, and elves, though with a "norse" take on things by having dwarves and trow (e.g. trolls).